Maths question...hard =(
-
and do u even know what is mathematical induction?Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:lol who's the dumbsh*t - the person who understands how to do the question(me) or the person who doesn't(you)?. Hmm....think about that one for a while, d*ckhead
haha
i doubt u know u dumb farrrrk =/ -
nxt time please learn to read..hahaOriginally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:lol who's the dumbsh*t - the person who understands how to do the question(me) or the person who doesn't(you)?. Hmm....think about that one for a while, d*ckhead
and also
if ur iq is so low..plz dun xia lan urself here...
only make urself look more stupid...
lols..still claim u can solve that question using MI..=/
ur kidding rights?
-
what is MI?
-
mathematical inductionOriginally posted by Xephone_xenon:what is MI? -
f*ck off, i didn't see the mathematical induction part coz not only do u suck at maths u suck at english too so i had no idea wtf u were trying to ask of me so please go back to f*ckin primary school and learn basic english and i know wat mathematical induction is u retard and u obviously don't coz that's y ure asking the goddam question.Originally posted by AMEN567889:i shall repeat myself one more time..use mathematical induction method to solve the question..not using the method u stated...ur so fuking dumb!!
my gawd!! hahaha!!still claim u can solve that question?? bull shit haha..u complete ur O's then come talk ok? dumb prick -
A dumb calling ppl dumb... if you know, you would not be here asking... Dumb ASS!Originally posted by AMEN567889:and do u even know what is mathematical induction?
haha
i doubt u know u dumb farrrrk =/
Now, instead of getting ppl to help you. You are asking ppl to flame you instead. -
Go read your lecture notes.
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
if u know show it here..dumb prick..
f*ck off, [b]i didn't see the mathematical induction part coz not only do u suck at maths u suck at english too so i had no idea wtf u were trying to ask of me so please go back to f*ckin primary school and learn basic english and i know wat mathematical induction is u retard and u obviously don't coz that's y ure asking the goddam question.[/b]
u know why u dun understand my question in the frist place?
cuz ur dumb
i dun see any one here that dun understand my question except u.
so..haha -
to show my superiority and ur stupidity ill solve it using MI u dumb f*ckhead u better be grateful
For any positive integer n, 1 + 2 + ... + n = n(n+1)/2.
Proof by MI: Let's let P(n) be the statement 1 + 2 + ... + n = (n (n+1)/2
The idea is that P(n) should be an assertion that for any n is verifiably either true or false
Verify that P(1) is True. P(1) asserts 1 = 1(2)/2 which true
Prove the following assertion --- If there is a k such that P(k) is true, then (for this same k) P(k+1) is true Thus, there is a k such that 1 + 2 + ... + k = k (k+1)/
Prove, for this same k, the formula 1 + 2 + ... + k + (k+1) = (k+1)(k+2)/2
1 + 2 + ... + k + (k+1) = k(k+1)/2 + (k+1) = (k(k+1) + 2 (k+1))/2 = (k+1)(k+2)/2. The first equality is a consequence of the inductive assumption.
now bow down before me u stupid piece of f*ck -
ur method is wrong u dumb fark!!Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:to show my superiority and ur stupidity ill solve it using MI u dumb f*ckhead u better be grateful
For any positive integer n, 1 + 2 + ... + n = n(n+1)/2.
Proof by MI: Let's let P(n) be the statement 1 + 2 + ... + n = (n (n+1)/2
The idea is that P(n) should be an assertion that for any n is verifiably either true or false
Verify that P(1) is True. P(1) asserts 1 = 1(2)/2 which true
Prove the following assertion --- If there is a k such that P(k) is true, then (for this same k) P(k+1) is true Thus, there is a k such that 1 + 2 + ... + k = k (k+1)/
Prove, for this same k, the formula 1 + 2 + ... + k + (k+1) = (k+1)(k+2)/2
1 + 2 + ... + k + (k+1) = k(k+1)/2 + (k+1) = (k(k+1) + 2 (k+1))/2 = (k+1)(k+2)/2. The first equality is a consequence of the inductive assumption.
now bow down before me u stupid piece of f*ck
u still dun get it dont u?
fug off.
-
dude WTF i bet u thats rightOriginally posted by AMEN567889:ur method is wrong u dumb fark!!
u still dun get it dont u?
fug off. -
i bet ur mother's pu$$y that its wrong u fuking dumb prick..Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:dude WTF i bet u thats right
stop embarrassing urself here ^^ -
ooops forgot the last but most important line:
Since you have verified P(k) it follows that P(k+1) is true and therefore P(k+2) is also true and so is P(k+3) and so on so forth... the theorem has been proved this way -
Instead of saying ppl wrong, prove it!Originally posted by AMEN567889:ur method is wrong u dumb fark!!
u still dun get it dont u?
fug off.
If you say if you know you wouldn't ask, then how you know it is wrong?
So, it would still be credited to the one who is dumb enough to skip the lecture that he would not understand himself and started a flame war against himself in SGF cos he is dumb enough not to say things politely.
I hope that this dumb ass get kicked out. -
AHHAHHAHAAH DUDE U ARE SUCH A SAD BASTARD U JUST CANT ACCEPT THAT IM RIGHT AND URE WRONG U SUCK DONKEY BALLS GO TO SCHOOL TOMORROW AND REALISE THAT URE AN IDIOT WHEN U FIND OUT IM RIGHT AHAHHAHAHA OH MAN JUST ACCEPT DEFEATOriginally posted by AMEN567889:i bet ur mother's pu$$y that its wrong u fuking dumb prick..
stop embarrassing urself here ^^ -
really, i dunno wat he wants really. i feel sorry for u, this is wat u get for helping ppl like him. u're kind.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:dude WTF i bet u thats right -
he just send a private message to me saying im so f*cking dumb. i shouldn't have helped this sorry immature loser
-
Pride la brother
-
Pride stings.
-
helping those who are ignorant and immature is possibly the dumbest thing one could ever doOriginally posted by valcrist:Pride stings. -
no point doing all these questions
-
Will not do the full induction here. Fill in the gaps yourself.
Let P_k be the statement "the number of handshakes for n ppl in a party where each person shakes another person's hand only once = n(n - 1)/2" where n is in the set of natural numbers and n > 1
P(2) is trivial.
Assume P(k) is true for some k in the set of natural numbers and again k > 1.
Now let us consider the case for k + 1 ppl. We consider the number of hand shakes the k + 1 person has to make with the rest of the k ppl in the grp. Clearly, he needs to shake k times.
Hence the number of total number hand shakes that occur = k(k - 1)/2 + k
= k(k + 1)/2
This implies P(k+1) is true.
Hence P(k) is true => P(k + 1)
P(2) => P(3) => P(4)...
Hence P(n) is true by M.I.
Quite trivial question. Try proving using combinatorics. The answer is sweeter. -
that i right...thx..understood leOriginally posted by greengoblin:Will not do the full induction here. Fill in the gaps yourself.
Let P_k be the statement "the number of handshakes for n ppl in a party where each person shakes another person's hand only once = n(n - 1)/2" where n is in the set of natural numbers and n > 1
P(2) is trivial.
Assume P(k) is true for some k in the set of natural numbers and again k > 1.
Now let us consider the case for k + 1 ppl. We consider the number of hand shakes the k + 1 person has to make with the rest of the k ppl in the grp. Clearly, he needs to shake k times.
Hence the number of total number hand shakes that occur = k(k - 1)/2 + k
= k(k + 1)/2
This implies P(k+1) is true.
Hence P(k) is true => P(k + 1)
P(2) => P(3) => P(4)...
Hence P(n) is true by M.I.
Quite trivial question. Try proving using combinatorics. The answer is sweeter. -
Wat a farking dumb prick
Go home and do your own homework and tutorial. Don't ask people do for you. Useless piece of shit. M.I. also don't know. Pay attention during lectures and don't go and look at girls. Quit your stupid CO and go and study. Useless totally useless Your parents are farking pathetic to give birth to you -
i am sad to say a person with attitude like yours can even finish sec sch.